Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003.

Our bill will allow States to get back more of what they contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments to 95 percent.

Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal highway funds to States.

Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway Trust Fund.

This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously defended it.

At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low- population predominately Western States getting more funds than they contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. However, there is no justification for any state getting more than its fair share.

Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State.

We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan and the jobs that go with it. According to Federal Highway Administration calculations, Michigan would have received an additional $42 million in FY 02 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. There is no logical reason for some States to continue to send that money to other States to subsidize their road and bridge projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair.

With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or contributions are.

The Voinovich-Levin bill is consensus bill developed with the help of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. A companion bill is being introduced in the House today by majority leader Tom DeLay and Representative Barron Hill. With this legislation, we intend to send a strong message to the authorizing committees that they should address the equity issue in the Senate and House highway reauthorization bills. We are determined to make progress in this bill to redistribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its fair share.

This is an issue of equity and we will not be satisfied until we achieve it.

Madam President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. I think the business before us is to dispose of the Graham of South Carolina second-degree amendment and then the underlying Daschle amendment. I do not know if any of the opponents of the two amendments are on the floor to speak, but I think we should dispose of those. It is my understanding that after those amendments are disposed of, Senator Jack Reed will be ready to proceed with an amendment.

I am happy to yield.

If the chairman will yield for an inquiry, if we could put in a very brief quorum call, I think I would be able to straighten out which of the other amendments might be offered while we are awaiting a vote on the Graham of South Carolina amendment. I need to make two quick calls and could then give a report.

If the Senator will yield, I don't know what consultation exists between the Parliamentarian and the staffs of committees relative----

If I could just complete my statement?

Relative to bills that come before them.

These are complex bills. I assume they consult all the time. I cannot imagine it is unusual for the Parliamentarian to talk to either Members of the Senate or to our staff.

By the way, this requirement of relevance is not unusual. I just ask the Parliamentarian, is this an uncommon provision? It is not an uncommon provision. In fact, it seems to me, in a bill that recently came before us it had a provision, although I cannot remember which one it was--but it is not an uncommon provision. It was not intended to prevent any particular amendment.

As the Senator from Virginia said, it was just simply intended to give some kind of parameter to a very lengthy and complex bill. It was not aimed at a BRAC amendment or aimed at any particular amendment.

I would ask the Parliamentarian for a definition of ``relevance.'' I would follow his definition. If the Parliamentarian asked me whether or not that provision was germane to the bill under the common germaneness definition, I would say, Boy, it sure sounds germane to me. But the Parliamentarian would tell me, No, sorry, that's not germane to the bill.

I don't know what the technical definition of ``relevance'' is. But it is technically defined like the word ``germane.'' It is not just a general word which is taken from the dictionary. There is a parliamentary definition of the word ``relevant.'' That is the definition which is incorporated, I believe, in every single unanimous consent request that there be a relevance standard.

Again, I repeat, and I think it is important we find this out, it is not uncommon to have a relevance standard in a unanimous consent request to limit amendments to debate so we can keep within the parameters of the bill.

If I could add one other thing, to my friend from North Dakota. It seems to me what the Senator from North Dakota may be arguing at the moment is that, in fact, his amendment is relevant, or that it could be made relevant within the meaning of the word as defined by the Parliamentarian. If so, it seems to me that takes care of the issue.

I know the Senator from North Dakota----

Madam President, if the Senator from North Dakota was asking me do I believe that a BRAC amendment is germane to this bill, not relevant but germane to this bill--look up the word ``germane'' in the dictionary--it sure sounds germane to me. But then I ask the Parliamentarian if it is germane, and the Parliamentarian says, no, it is not germane to this bill, and if this were a postcloture situation, it would be allowed, the Senator could get up and ask, Does the Senator from Michigan really believe the BRAC amendment should not be allowed on this bill because under the rules of the Senate it is apparently not germane? The Parliamentarian has told us that.

What intrigues me is the relevance standard which the Senator from North Dakota has raised as to whether or not, in fact, there has been a change. I use the words ``whether or not'' there has

been a change in the standard of relevancy. It seems to me that is an important issue for this body to review, as to whether there has been a change in that definition. I haven't talked to the Parliamentarian about it. I don't know. Does the Senator from North Dakota suggest that there has been a change? Whether there is, has been, would be or not, we should know as a body what the standard of relevance is and whether there has been a change and, if so, how did it come about.

I hope the Parliamentarian, given this exchange, would advise the Senate as to the standard of relevance and as to whether or not there has been a change in that standard. I am not suggesting, obviously, that the Parliamentarian speak on the floor at this point. I am suggesting the Parliamentarian advise the Senate in some written form relative to the standard of relevancy because the Senator is raising an absolutely essential issue. We use the word ``relevant'' here all the time. If there is a change in the definition of that word, then it seems to me we ought to know about it and decide whether or not we are comfortable with it.

I am sorry?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

If the Senator will withhold that for a moment, I would like to add one quick comment on this amendment as to what the stakes are.

First, I want to commend Senator Reed for bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. This is not, in all fairness, simply a reporting amendment. This is not just more reports. This tells the Missile Defense Office to adopt performance criteria which are measurable, adopt an operational test plan for your systems, adopt a timetable, all of which can be changed any time they want to. I don't think it is fair to characterize this as some inflexible thing which is laid upon the Ballistic Missile Defense Office. It is highly flexible. It just tells the Ballistic Missile Defense Office to do whatever other program managers do, of every major weapons system--adopt a measurable performance criteria and adopt an operational test plan, including some kind of timetable. It is neither inflexible, nor is it unusual.

I don't know of any other major weapons system that does not have these kind of criteria. I just didn't agree with that characterization of it. Where I do agree totally with our chairman is that if there is a way to work this matter out, it should be worked out. This is an important system. The issue is no longer whether a ballistic missile defense is going to be fielded. That is not the issue anymore. The question now is whether it will have any kind of performance criteria by which it can be judged. That is the issue.

It seems to me we ought to be grateful as a body to the Senator from Rhode Island for bringing to our attention the fact that these important measurements are absent. But in fairness, I think it is not simply more reports to the Congress. It is saying to the Ballistic Missile Defense Office: We want you to adopt performance criteria that are measurable. It is not a matter of reporting to us. It is a matter of doing it for yourself and for the American people. That is what the issue is here. Send us a copy, by the way, will you?

There are all kinds of amendments that have not been considered. Senator Reed is one human being who has taken upon himself a huge amount of material to digest and present to the committee. He did a magnificent job. I think my good friend from Virginia would agree with that. There are other things which, as a matter of time, one is not able to put together and present to the committee at that moment but which are important to present to the entire Senate. I don't think we can fault Senator Reed in that regard. That is purely a matter, it seems to me, of what human limitations might be in terms of what one human being can do. But he surely did more than his share in terms of the work that was presented to the committee.

It is always ideal to try to bring matters before the committee. The chairman knows I agree with him on that. Sometimes it is not possible just it terms of the workload to do that. I don't think we can fault any member of the committee if and when that load is such that they have to present it to the floor because they were not able to get together in place all the material at the time of the committee hearings. The Senator from Rhode Island would be involved in the debate on many nuclear weapons systems even though those matters in some cases were brought to the attention of the committee.

There are new formulations just because new thinking has been brought to bear since our committee hearings and markup on those subjects.

But, in any event, I fully concur with the Senator from Virginia. If we can possibly work this out to fill in an omission in what the Ballistic Missile Defense Office should be doing, which is to develop these performance criteria which are measurable for this major system to have an operational test plan for this major weapons system, it seems to me if that can be worked out either over lunch or during the afternoon, I fully concur with the chairman that we ought to do that.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the Reed amendment now laid aside? Has that action been taken?

So that we now at this point have three amendments which are laid aside, and there is no amendment which is pending before the Senate, is that correct?

Did the Chair say two first-degree amendments and one second degree?

The Senator is correct. There are at least two provisions here.

The Senator is correct. The so-called low-yield weapons indeed are about one-third the power of the weapon that was used at Hiroshima.

Under the law that exists today, the so-called Spratt- Furse language which exists in law today, there is a prohibition on research and development which could lead to the production of a so- called low-yield weapon. Under the bill, that language would be stricken from the law and there would be no such prohibition.

The so-called bunker busters, which is a total misnomer in my book because these are city busters--they may indeed be nation busters or world busters, but nevertheless the so-called bunker busters are two weapons. There is a so-called B-61 weapon, which is about the power of 28 Hiroshimas, and the other one is the B-83, which is up to 71 Hiroshima weapons, in terms of power.

I don't have a calculator. Whatever 140 times 70 would amount to would be that number, assuming the same approximate density in Hiroshima.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I just suggest two things: One, the interspersed order include Republican speakers, should they desire----

Secondly, there will be additional speakers beyond that. I would not want to suggest that the debate would end then because we have additional speakers.

Prior to that, Senator Byrd wanted to speak. I wanted to speak for 10 minutes, and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Akaka want to speak as well.

I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico will yield for an inquiry.

Can the Senator give an approximation of how long he will speak?

An hour and a half?

Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield just for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Feingold, Senator Inhofe be recognized and then Senator Byrd be recognized after that Senator, and then Senator Talent be recognized after Senator Byrd.

I wonder if the Senator from Arizona would modify the request to add Senator Reed immediately after Senator Allard on his side.

Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

We are going to do our best. While the Senator is speaking, I will talk to Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein.

I am willing to cut my time down as well. I haven't talked to Senator Feinstein, who has already cut her time down.

Mr. President, the provisions in this bill relating to the development of new nuclear weapons mark a major and a very dangerous shift in American policy. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat we face. Uncorking the nuclear bottle to develop new and modified nuclear weapons goes in the opposite direction of the commitment we made when we signed the nonproliferation treaty. We are a party to that treaty.

It has been said on this floor that North Korea is a party to the nonproliferation treaty, and they have to live up to it. They got something in return for their signature. They did, indeed. They got our signature, and our signature committed us to end the nuclear arms race.

Uncorking the nuclear bottle, which these provisions do, makes a mockery of our argument to other countries around the world that they should not go nuclear.

Just think about some of the headlines in the last few months about North Korea: ``U.S. Assails Move by North Koreans to Reject Treaty.'' That is the nonproliferation treaty to which we are a signatory, too, that commits us to end the nuclear arms race, not to start a new chapter in the nuclear arms race. So we assail their move.

Another headline: ``Military Action Possible, U.S. Warns North Korea.'' We take their move toward nuclear weapons so seriously that we have actually suggested we may initiate military action to stop them from moving in a nuclear direction. Yet we, if these provisions stay, are moving in that same direction. We have told Iran the same thing. We have urged Russia: Do not help Iran go nuclear. Do not supply them with any materials which they might use to go nuclear.

Yet in these provisions in this bill, we would, if they stay in the bill, lift a prohibition that exists in current law in the United States which prohibits the research and development on nuclear weapons that could lead to the production of new nuclear weapons. That is what the so-called Spratt-Furse language does. It prohibits research and development on nuclear weapons which could lead to their production. That is the language which was stricken by a 15-to-10 vote in the Armed Services Committee, and that is the language which the amendment offered by the Senators from California and Massachusetts would restore to the law.

We have a special responsibility for a lot of reasons. No. 1, we are the leader. We have to live up to what we say we want others to do. But we are also the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons. We say we are determined to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Are we serious about that? If we have a prohibition in our law which says we will not do research and development on nuclear weapons which could lead to their production, are people around the world going to take us seriously that, in fact, we want to stop other countries from going nuclear, gaining nuclear weapons, that our major fear is the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we take the position that an existing prohibition in law on research and development that could lead to production of those weapons is going to be lifted by us?

We have a special responsibility. This is a security issue for us. Are we really more secure in the world where that nuclear bottle is uncorked and uncorked by us, by lifting an existing ban in our law?

Nuclear weapons cannot be seen as just another option for warfare. They cannot be seen as usable as warfighting weapons. Yet the administration is moving to change the historic position of one U.S. administration after another by looking to make nuclear weapons more usable, not just as another capability but usable in warfighting, and that is the language which has been quoted on this floor.

The language of the head of the nuclear weapons program talks about the desirability of designing weapons which are usable. That is his word, ``usable.'' One administration after another has gone in the other direction.

The specific weapons that are covered by the ban are so-called low- yield nuclear weapons. What a misnomer that is for reasons so many of us have given on the floor this afternoon. Five kilotons, which is the definition of a low-yield weapon, is roughly one-third the size of the nuclear bomb that was used on Hiroshima which immediately killed 140,000 people, left hundreds of thousands radiated and injured in other ways. And by the way, 140,000 people was almost half the population of Hiroshima.

Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, whether they are a third the size of the bomb that was used at Hiroshima or 20 times the size or 40 times the size. They are weapons of mass destruction.

The administration seeks to repeal a ban on research and development which could lead to the production of a weapon of mass destruction. That is the bottom line, and the statement by the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Mr. Linton Brooks, makes it very clear that there is an intent here to develop weapons which are ``usable.'' That is not my word. That is not the word of the supporters of the amendment, the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts. That is the testimony of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration who said that he has a bias in favor of things--referring to weapons--that might be usable, referring to the so-called low-yield nuclear weapons.

It is more than research. In this law which exists, unless we repeal it, are prohibitions on research and development. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in charge of these programs, Mr. Celec, who has also been quoted today, specifically said the following. Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, made clear that:

The administration wants the weapon and it is moving

forward.

He is talking about a weapon that could be a deep penetrator. It could be a so-called bunker buster, but also it could be a low-yield weapon. He is not specific. If a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded, Celec said in an interview with the Mercury News. The San Jose Mercury News in 2003 ran that story, and we have confirmed that, in fact, that is what he said. He was not misquoted. So we have the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters saying that if a hydrogen bomb can be designed to penetrate hard rock and still explode, ``it will ultimately get fielded.''

That is the path the language in the bill repealing the so-called Spratt amendment would take us down.

All of this is being done in the context of what is called the Nuclear Posture Review which was completed by the administration in December of 2001. This was the first step in an effort to develop new usable nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Posture Review is the basis for a new strategic policy that is described in a March 23, 2002, Washington Post article:

Would give U.S. Presidents the option of conducting a

preemptive strike with precision-guided conventional bombs or

nuclear weapons.

That is the policy shift which occurred back then. That is the environment in which we are determining whether or not to lift a prohibition on research and development of new nuclear weapons.

That Nuclear Posture Review walks away from a longstanding policy that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons against a nonnuclear state. That Nuclear Posture Review, again according to the Washington Post article, specifically identifies countries that could be targets, including North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya.

The legislative proposal that accompanied the administration's request to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons says the following--that is the proposal that accompanied the request that the committee voted to approve by a 15-to-10 vote. This is what the administration's language says:

In this regard, the . . . Nuclear Posture Review urged

exploration of weapons concepts that could offer greater

capabilities for precision, earth penetration--

And other things.

The justification concluded that the Spratt-Furse law impedes this effort.

It does indeed.

Without the Spratt-Furse law, there is no legal impediment to the development, testing, production, or deployment of new, usable nuclear weapons.

Will that impediment be removed? That is the issue we are going to decide tonight. At a time when we are trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea's pulling out of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, when we are spending over a billion dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology, it seems to me that lifting this prohibition on the research and development of nuclear weapons which could lead to their production sends a terrible message. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we would be recklessly driving down that same road.

In short, the United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate in others. We live in a dangerous world where proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat we face. The answer is not to make the world more dangerous by our own actions.

If Senator Allard wishes to alternate, there would then be someone to speak from his side. If not, I know Senator Feinstein is next in line.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator withhold for just a moment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the Senate has just voted to authorize the research of new nuclear weapons for the first time since 1993. We have removed a prohibition on research which could lead to the production of nuclear weapons. This is a major shift, in my judgment, a terribly mistaken shift in policy because of the message it so clearly sends to the world that we are now going to walk down the road we are telling the rest of the world not to walk down.

The amendment which has been offered by Senator Reed, of which I am a cosponsor, starts from that point. However, as the Senator from Rhode Island just described, it does not seek in any way to reverse what the Senate just did relative to the research that the opponents of the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment said was so important to protect. It accepts the decision of the Senate and the opponents of the Feinstein- Kennedy amendment--the argument made that research should not be prohibited. Senator Reed's amendment does not prohibit research. Rather, it says we should not allow the development of these new weapons and, of course, any subsequent testing or deployment of those weapons; that if we are going to let the world know we are not committed to the deployment and the development of new weapons, we have to send a clear signal to the world of some kind that even though research would be allowed, nonetheless we are not going to raise the prohibition or lift the prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons.

I believe it was a mistake to repeal the Spratt-Furse language. I think what we are doing is telling the North Koreas and the Irans of the world that we are not going to tolerate your having nuclear weapons, but we are going to develop new nuclear weapons ourselves. It is a totally inconsistent position. It undermines our whole position and our standing in the world to argue that nations such as North Korea and Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

It is mighty difficult to persuade even our Allies in the world that we should take strong measures to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, and we should take strong measures to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including working with the Russians to try to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but, oh, by the way, we are going to do research and development on new nuclear weapons.

As the Senator from Rhode Island and others have said, this isn't just a matter of research, because the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters puts it this way: ``If a hydrogen bomb could be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded''--I presume speaking for the administration.

So nobody should be, in any way, fooled that what we are talking about is just simply research. Unless we put a prohibition in to stop the development of these weapons, what the world will believe--and I think accurately--is that it is not just research, it is development. Then, in the words of Fred Celec, the Deputy Assistant Secretary on nuclear matters: It will get fielded.

Now, the opponents of the last amendment said: Well, that is not what we are trying to do here. We are not trying to make any commitment to fielding a weapon or even developing a weapon. All we are talking about is research. And since the Spratt amendment prohibits research on weapons which could lead to their deployment and to their production, we think the Spratt amendment simply goes too far and should be repealed.

So what the Senator from Rhode Island does in his amendment is say: Well, then, for Heaven's sake, consistent with that--and to avoid sending a message which even the opponents of the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment said they do not want to send--let us keep the prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons. That is all the amendment offered by Senator Reed does.

It seems to me it is the least we can do to avoid sending a signal from the U.S. Senate that this country is now going down a road that we are saying no country should go down, which is the road of new nuclear weapons.

The former Assistant Energy Secretary, Rose Gottemoeller, in March of 2003 put it this way:

Other countries watch us like a hawk. They are very, very

attentive to what we do in the nuclear arena. This is going

to be considered another step in the tectonic shift.

She was referring to the repeal of the Spratt-Furse language.

I think people abroad will interpret this as part of a

really enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to

renuclearize. And I think definitely there's going to be an

impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the

world.

The greatest threat we face is the terrorist threat and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We should do what we can to avoid sending a signal to the world that we are committed to the development of new nuclear weapons. The prohibition now has been lifted on research and development of new nuclear weapons, which could lead to their production.

Unless we adopt the Reed amendment, it will appear to the world-- accurately--that this Senate is committed to the development of new nuclear weapons. I hope we are not going to make that commitment. It would be a terrible mistake for what it would unleash.

In order to avoid that commitment from being made, or from appearing to be made, to the rest of the world, we need the Reed language, which says that we are going to keep the prohibition of Spratt-Furse from the development stage on.

The Senate has spoken relative to research. The words again of the opponents, who have said: My Heavens,

under Spratt-Furse, you can't even do the research. Surely, we ought to allow scientists to think.

The Reed amendment is consistent with what the opponents of Feinstein-Kennedy said was their main reason for opposing the prohibition that exists in law. So I would hope that we could adopt the language that is in Senator Reed's amendment, to indicate we, in fact, are not committed to the development of new nuclear weapons, and that we would not march down a road when we tell other nations they must not march down that road.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am just comparing the two amendments. It seems to me in terms of directives, the simplicity of the Reed amendment has it all over the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. It is shorter than the Senator's amendment, if I am reading this amendment correctly. I want to make sure I have the right amendment before I make this statement. It looks like on page 2 at least there are 10 lines of type; is that correct? Am I looking at the correct amendment?

On the first page.

Correct. It is at least as simple as the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, which I understand is really a substitute.

When the Senator says it reimposes the limitation on development, the Senator is correct. It does do that.

The Reed amendment, according to my dear friend from Virginia, would reimpose the prohibition on development that was just repealed in the bill's language and left in because of the defeat of the Feinstein amendment. That is correct.

That is correct.

And the Senator's amendment is useful.

The Senator from Virginia, the Senator I am addressing.

I am glad we are not in a trial courtroom because you surely don't have me nailed here.

It is quite clear what the Senator from Rhode Island and I want to do, which is maintain a prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons. The difference is exactly what the Senator from Rhode Island said, which is that his amendment, which I have cosponsored, maintains a prohibition on development; whereas the amendment of the Senator from Virginia says the administration would have to come back for reauthorization.

The Senator from Virginia's amendment is valuable. As a matter of fact, I offered the amendment the Senator from Virginia is offering tonight in committee. It was defeated by one vote.

In our committee I offered the amendment saying, come back for reauthorization because under the circumstances, having defeated what we just had previously defeated in committee, I thought that was the best that could be achieved. And we could

not achieve that because it was defeated by a 13-to-12 vote. I don't doubt there is value to what the Senator from Virginia is doing.

I am delighted that the Senator from Virginia has offered this as a second-degree amendment. Believe me, if the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island is defeated by the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia as a substitute, all of us would be very supportive of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. Let it be clear that while there is value in it, there is not as much value in it as the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island. It is not as clear a statement to the world that we are not committed to the development of new nuclear weapons.

What the Reed amendment says is: Development of these new weapons is prohibited. That is a very clear statement. The clarity of that statement is absolutely pure. It is a lot clearer in terms of assuring the world that we are not committed to the development of new nuclear weapons than is a statement such as the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia which is, if you want to develop, come back to us for authorization.

I say that in all sincerity. I look the Senator from Virginia in the eye and say: His amendment, in my book, has value but not nearly the value of the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

I hope we will adopt the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island and defeat the substitute offered by the Senator from Virginia. But should the substitute prevail, I would in all good conscience vote for the substitute amendment if, in fact, it is substituted for the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

Nonetheless, there is a much stronger statement made of reassurance to the world, a statement to the North Koreas and the Irans of the world, that we are not committed to developing new nuclear weapons, if we say exactly that. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island says. We are not going to proceed with the development, even though we are going to allow research on these new nuclear weapons.

I hope, again, the substitute is not agreed to and that the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island is agreed to.

Again, I commend the Senator from Virginia because I do think that there is a contribution in his substitute amendment which is better than just simply repealing the Spratt-Furse language.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island and all those who worked with him to make this amendment possible. It is a significant contribution to making our missile defense system more effective, both in terms of the cost and operational effectiveness. It fills some very important holes that otherwise would have existed, and it is his tenacity that made it possible.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment of Senator Warner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 1050 and any votes thereon.

I further ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Kolbe, a legislative fellow in the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the consideration of S. 1050.

Mr. President, I look forward to many more times.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Warner for shepherding the Defense authorization bill to the floor again. I do not know how many times he has led the effort--I lost count--but each time he has handled the very difficult duties with great fairness and, I think, timely, perhaps with record dispatch. He is always efficient and, it seems to me--and I agree with Senator Warner--this may set a record in the committee, for many of the reasons our chairman mentioned, including the determination that we be together totally as a body in support of the men and women in the Armed Forces who are in so many dangerous places in the world as we speak.

I also join Chairman Warner in commending all of the committee members for their hard work; our staffs, for the long hours they put in to produce this bill. As always, it is a complicated bill, a detailed bill and, more than ever perhaps, a critically important bill.

As we begin the consideration of this bill this afternoon, our men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve who are deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe, are being subjected almost daily to armed attack in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our Armed Forces have demonstrated extraordinary military prowess. Their success is a tribute first and foremost to their own skill, dedication, and professionalism, and to the skill of their leaders. It is also the result of the investments in national defense that many administrations and Congresses have made over the years.

Our success on the battlefields of the future will depend on the investments we make today to prepare, train, and equip our military. The bill provides our Armed Forces with the means they need to meet today's challenges and it makes the investments that will be needed to respond to the challenges of this century.

It also continues the increases in compensation and quality of life for our service men and women and their families.

Chairman Warner has described in some detail what is contained in the bill, and I will not attempt to duplicate his summary, but I would like to make a few general comments and point out a couple of matters where there is a divergence of view within the committee.

This is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is balanced for many reasons. It equips the Armed Forces to deal with today's threats and it makes the investments necessary to transform our forces to meet the threats of the future. It is balanced in that it does not prematurely seek to apply lessons some may believe have been learned from Iraq even before the Department of Defense has had an opportunity to study and analyze that conflict and to report to us on what lessons they believe have been learned.

In his briefing of Senators in S-407 on May 8, General Franks specifically noted that it would take some time to identify the lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom, and we could do harm to our national defense if we sought to apply the wrong lessons from those operations or if we too speedily determined what, in fact, were the lessons learned.

The bill is also balanced in that it seeks to incorporate those provisions of the Department of Defense's transformation proposals that provide appropriate flexibility for the operation of the Department in a manner that preserves congressional oversight responsibilities. For example, the bill contains provisions that would repeal dozens of reporting requirements, establishes a new defense modernization account to fund life cycle cost reduction initiatives. It authorizes a pilot program to test new procedures for conducting public/private competitions. It provides the Department with special pay authority to help it fill critical positions.

It is also balanced because of the provisions it does not include. The bill before us does not include provisions that would undermine the ability of the uniformed military to provide independent advice to the civilian chain of command, and to the Congress. It does not include provisions which would undermine congressional oversight by repealing the requirement that the Department of Defense provide us with basic information on the costs, schedule, and performance of major weapons programs.

The bill before us does not authorize the reorganization of the Department of Defense without regard to statutory requirements or establish a foreign military assistance program to be conducted by the Department of Defense rather than by the Department of State. The bill does not authorize the Department to move money from one program to another without congressional authorization.

Perhaps the most pointed evidence of the balanced nature of this bill is that it was reported out of committee with the unanimous support of all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a tribute to the balance of the bill but also to the leadership of our chairman.

That does not mean there are not any provisions in the bill on which there is disagreement, because there are. There are a number of areas that are troublesome and on which I expect there will

be significant debate this week. For example, there are provisions in report language that move us in the direction of developing new nuclear weapons and modifications of current nuclear weapons. Current U.S. law bans research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so-called low yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5 kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima which immediately killed an estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The administration has asked this ban be repealed. If the ban is repealed, the purpose is to make nuclear weapons more usable.

As stated by Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I

have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum

destruction. . . . I have a bias in favor of things that

might be usable.

The language approved by the majority of the Armed Services Committee would repeal the ban on the development of low yield nuclear weapons. Without this ban, there is no impediment in law to research, development, testing, production, or deployment of new low yield nuclear weapons.

The bill also provides the National Nuclear Security Administration with funds the administration requested to continue work on a robust nuclear earth penetrator. This effort would modify one of two existing high yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification are high yield nuclear weapons with yields approximating 30 and 70 times the nuclear explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.

Without a requirement that that nuclear earth penetrator weapon be authorized by Congress, there is no legal impediment to its development, testing, production, or deployment.

At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and when we suggest that indeed we may use military force to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, when we are spending billions of dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology, these proposed actions by the administration would send the opposite message we are trying to give to the world. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road.

The United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate in others.

In the area of ballistic missile defense, one of the problems lies in what is not in the bill rather than what is in the bill. The missile defense program continues to move along, spending billions of dollars without performance criteria. Moreover, the Department of Defense has cancelled plans for 9 of the 20 ground-based midcourse interceptors that have been planned from 2003 to 2007. Surely we have an obligation to test the limited ballistic missile defense and to understand the extent to which it will or will not work. Yet one of the key tests the Department proposed to cancel is the most significant test. It was scheduled before the end of the fiscal year 2004. We restored that funding in committee.

If we want a missile defense system that actually works, rather than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not be cancelling tests. The administration actually requested that operational testing not be required on a limited missile defense system. We refused that request and we struck the language the administration had proposed. Again, thankfully, our bill restores an intercept test with a missile defense program in 2004. More needs to be done to assure that this system is tested adequately and proven to really work. The rest of the canceled tests should be restored. There will be debate on these and other areas relating to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

I conclude by stating, again, the bill the committee has reported out under the leadership of Chairman Warner is a good bill. His leadership made it happen. I commend him.

I know the Senator from Massachusetts wished to speak. Is Senator Collins ready to go? Perhaps the Chair could recognize whoever is ready to go.

Madam President, will the Senator yield before yielding the floor just for a question?

First of all, I join my good friend from Virginia in commending the Senator from Maine for her great work in both our committee and also as chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she is doing an absolutely superb job. Part of that job is to take a look at proposals that are as far-reaching as the one that was very suddenly dropped upon us by the Department of Defense.

This is a far-reaching proposal. We have had very little time, as these matters go, to look at it. This Senate is a body which deliberates over these kinds of changes. I would hope that we would, No. 1, try to fashion a draft for consideration which would give greater flexibility--and I know Senator Collins is working extremely hard to do just that--but I also commend her for her caution, it seems to me, in saying that we are going to put together a draft and then we are going to propose it. Because there are some procedures which really should be followed here to protect the men and women in our civilian force, just the way we have those procedures for our uniformed forces.

The quality of life, which we talk about all the time and we try to protect, is important, surely, for our uniformed men and women, but it is also important for the civilians, and they are entitled to have a proposal which they can look at, which they can comment on, and not one which is just suddenly sprung upon them by the Congress, whether it is the House, which acted very quickly on this far-ranging proposal, or by the Senate.

So I want to just suggest that we try to arrive at something which does give greater flexibility, but we do so in a way which shows the kind of deliberation and the kind of consideration which this body has been renowned for and which I know both my colleagues have been very supportive of throughout their careers.

I think one of the important words in the question asked by the Senator from Virginia is the word ``constructively.'' I would just add the word ``fairly.'' So if we can do something that is constructive and fair for the people impacted----

It seems to me we ought to give it a try. Those are important conditions, in my book.

There were precedents of many varieties, some good, some not so good.

I have no objection whatsoever. I am curious as to whether we are under time limits.

That is fine with me. I am happy to yield. How much time does my friend need?

That makes two of us. So I am happy to yield some additional time.

The Senator from Virginia is, of course, correct.

I join with him in asking Senators to share with us or our staffs at the 5 to 6 o'clock hour what amendment they would expect to be offering either tonight or tomorrow.

I also point out, I believe--I want to make sure I am correct--the vote that occurs at 5 will be the only vote today. I ask the Chair, is that correct?

I thought that had already been agreed to. Am I incorrect on that?

I withdraw that. I thought an announcement had been made and it would be, of course, inappropriate for anyone other than the majority leader to make that announcement.

The distinguished whip came to the floor just in time to save my reputation. I very much appreciate that.

If the Senator will yield for a minute?

I point out one other fact for the consideration of my good friend, the chairman. The chairman, of course, makes an important point about the fact there is a distinction between Active Duty and Reserve and there are certain benefits that people in Active Duty have which make it a little more attractive, perhaps, than it

otherwise might be in comparison to being in the Reserves.

There is a distinction in this amendment, as I read it, which requires the reservists while not on active duty to pay the premium. It is 28 percent of the total amount determined by the Secretary. That is a distinction between Active Duty and Reserve, where the active-duty personnel, of course, do not have to pay their own share; whereas, under the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, the reservists while not on active duty would have to pay, as I understand it, the share of about 28 percent.

That does retain that important distinction, while it does clearly confer a benefit, which is an important benefit because of all the reservists we have who simply do not have health insurance. We want them to be in a healthy state if and when they are called up--and we ought to want them in a healthy state even if they are never called up--but surely if they are called up it is important they be in good health.

Having access here to what is equal to what Federal employees have, that is what the Senator from South Dakota and the cosponsors are attempting to do, to give reservists the same kind of health care Federal employees have. That includes paying their own part of the premium but again having access to health insurance, which is so important for us to have a healthy Reserve Corps.

I wonder if I could ask the Senator to yield for 30 seconds so I could add my thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island for his indispensable contribution to the Armed Services Committee. He mentioned a few issues where he had some very strong feelings. These issues are just a few of the many where he has made an extraordinary contribution by experience and by intellect. He is really in a position to add immeasurably to the work of our committee. We are all very much in his debt for it.

Mr. President, it is very appropriate that our Presiding Officer is the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. He and Senator Ben Nelson have worked closely together to give us a product of which we can be proud. We are very indebted to the two of you.

With that, I yield the floor.

I wonder if the Senator will yield--we are trying to figure out the numbers on this--just for a question?

Perhaps we can get the numbers clarified overnight. Senator Daschle's estimate, after the first few years, where, I guess, there is a phase-in of some kind, is $1.2 billion, as the Senator from South Carolina indicated. I am trying to understand why that number might be lower than the number of the Senator from South Carolina, given the fact that under Senator Daschle's approach, the service members could keep their private insurance and then have it reimbursed by the Defense Department, which would seem to be a better deal for the service member. The service member has an option to maintain his private insurance but, on the other hand, might have a larger cost to the Government. I wonder if the numbers of the two amendments come from the same place and looking at the same time.

Is the Senator indicating the cost of maintaining the private care option is not included in the estimates that Senator Daschle received?

So the Senator is suggesting--it is important to get these numbers straightened out overnight--that the cost to the Government of the second option that Senator Daschle offers, which is to maintain private insurance, that cost is not included in the estimate which was given to Senator Daschle?

In which case the estimate would not be accurate.

We are going to ask our staffs to take a look at this issue overnight. There is a real difference.

Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from Nevada for two things: First, for his faithful commitment to this issue. Currently, we see it as an issue of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from North Dakota and a number of other Senators who have joined to try to bring equity in this area. We made at least some progress; it is because of their energy we have made the progress we have.

Second, I thank him for his acceptance of the ruling of the Chair. It is very important he does that because all Members need to accept the rulings of the Chair in the absence, it seems to me, of some overwhelming unusual precedent that would allow us to try to overrule the Chair. The whip's, the Democratic whip's approach is one which I think reflects the best traditions and the best instincts of this body. I thank him.

It also helped Senator Warner and I to complete this bill within the parameters of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation released a report entitled the Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, analyzing the Justice Department's commitment to enforcing and prosecuting gun laws. The report examines prosecution data acquired under the Freedom of Information Act from the Justice Department for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. The AGS study reveals a significant gap between the number of Federal gun crimes committed and the number of Federal prosecutions initiated.

The report found that 20 of the 22 major Federal gun laws are rarely prosecuted. The two statutes consistently enforced by Federal prosecutors are laws against the use of a firearm in the commission of a Federal crime and a felon in possession of a firearm. The other 20 laws address other illegal firearm activity, including gun trafficking, firearm theft, lying on a criminal background check form, removing firearm serial numbers, and selling guns to minors.

The statistics in the AGS report are startling. According to AGS, in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, Federal prosecutors filed 197 cases for gun trafficking, despite 100,000 guns showing signs of trafficking. Only 27 cases were filed against corrupt gun dealers, even though AGS reports that gun dealers are the leading source of firearms recovered in gun trafficking operations. Prosecutors in 22 States filed no cases against individuals committing the 20 least prosecuted crimes. Across the country, only seven cases for illegally selling a gun to a minor were filed, even though more than 30,000 gun crimes were committed by youths age 17 or under. Only 202 cases were filed for possessing or selling a stolen firearm, despite nearly 140,000 reported gun thefts that year in which the make, model, and serial number of a stolen gun was reported to police. And a mere 98 cases for possessing or selling a firearm with an obliterated serial number were prosecuted, despite thousands of these guns being recovered in just a few cities in one year.

I believe vigorous law enforcement is a critical step toward reducing gun violence. I urge the Justice Department to step up its efforts to prosecute not only people who commit gun crimes but those corrupt dealers who put guns in criminal hands.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Montana. Some U.S. companies have opened sham offices in Bermuda and pretended that the sham offices are the parent corporation, and thereby avoided taxes which the rest of us have to pay and which, indeed, their competitors have to pay. It is called inversion. It is not only a sham, it is shameful.

This bill takes some steps in addressing future inversions, but in terms of people who have already inverted, there is a lot of additional work to do. The ill-gotten gains which some companies have obtained through these sham moves to Bermuda should be confronted. It is not only unpatriotic, it is costing American taxpayers about $2 billion over the next 10 years.

My amendment would have addressed the future tax avoidance of people who have already gone through these sham moves to Bermuda.

Rather than offering the amendment at this time--it is a somewhat complicated amendment--I ask the Senator from Montana whether he might be able to support an effort along this line in the future.

I thank my friend and I will not be calling up my amendment.

Amendment No. 616

Mr. President, I cannot support this fiscally irresponsible and unfair tax cut package.

Our economy is struggling right now. Eight-and-a-half million Americans are out of work, and we now have about 2.7 million fewer private sector jobs than were in existence at the beginning of this administration. No President since the Great Depression has ended a term with fewer jobs than when his term began. Michigan has an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, among the highest in the Nation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigan lost 17,700 jobs just last month, the most of any State in the country. That brings the total number of Michigan jobs lost since the Bush administration took office to over 178,000, and the total number of unemployed in Michigan to 344,000.

We are also back into a deep deficit ditch. As recently as January 2001, the Office of Management and Budget projected a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now, under the recently passed budget resolution, we face an estimated deficit of $1.95 trillion over the same time period, including record deficits of over $300 billion for this year and the next. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently reiterated that the bigger the deficits, the higher the long-term interest rates, which means higher home, car, college and credit card payments for us all.

Our economy needs a lift now. It needs real jobs and real growth now, not a rehash of the same policies that were tried and failed in the recent past.

Unfortunately, this bill only provides more of the same failed policies.

While the bill purports to cost $350 billion over 10 years--an amount which already is fiscally irresponsible given our current deficit--this number is arrived at by using a budget gimmick that masks the true cost of the bill, which in reality is upwards of $660 billion over 10 years. The bill would completely exclude dividend income from individual taxation in 2004 through 2006, a policy that is expensive, not very stimulative to our economy and sharply slanted towards upper income folks. But then the bill ``sunsets'' the dividend exclusion so that it disappears beginning in 2007. Not only is that bad policy, it is also disingenuous and deceptive to the American people.

This bill also is too generous to those who need it the least. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would receive well over 50 percent of the tax benefits, and in 2003, those with incomes above $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $64,400, while those in the middle of the income spectrum would receive an average tax cut of only $233. Providing large tax cuts to the wealthy in the hopes that the benefits will trickle down to everybody else hasn't worked before, and there is little reason to think that it will work now. Following the same approach that failed time and again just doesn't make sense.

This plan provides no unemployment benefits to any of our 8.7 million unemployed Americans. It is ironic that in a bill that is based on the President's so-called ``Jobs and Growth'' package, the Republican majority is not addressing the immediate need for job assistance for millions of Americans. It is elementary economics that providing additional unemployment benefits is an excellent way to jump start a stagnant economy. The money we are talking about is money that will be spent. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, every $1 invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 in Gross Domestic Product. That is what our economy needs, not wildly expensive tax cuts that do little in the short term at a huge long-term cost.

While I am pleased that this bill contains funds to assist our struggling State and local governments, it does not do enough. Our States currently are facing their worst fiscal crisis in over 50 years, with many being forced to raise taxes or cut vital services like Medicaid in order to balance their budgets. Instead of doing all that we should to assist them, this bill includes a dividends exclusion provision that will actually strip States of revenues, something which will stimulate neither jobs nor growth.

I supported and voted for a tax package that was about creating jobs now, when we need it, in a way that did not mortgage our future.

The plan I supported was estimated to put more than 1 million people back to work by the end of 2004 at a fraction of this bill's costs. It would have cut taxes for every taxpaying American, providing a tax cut of $1,630 to a family of four through a wage credit, an acceleration of the child tax credit, and an elimination of the marriage penalty. It would have helped small businesses by providing them with a 50 percent tax credit to help employers maintain health coverage for their workers, and would have provided large and small companies with incentives to invest and create jobs by allowing small businesses to immediately write-off more investments and providing bonus depreciation to all companies. It also would have provided unemployment benefits for nearly 4 million laid-off workers, including those who have already exhausted their benefits. What our sagging economy needs right now is immediate jobs, growth, and stimulus, and that is what the plan I supported offered.

Instead, what passed is a package that is the wrong medicine for our ailing economy. It will create fewer jobs than what is needed. It will slight middle-class families in favor of the wealthy. And it will dramatically increase the deficit and national debt and drive up interest rates, which will make it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college, or pay off credit card debt. That is just not a plan that I can vote for.

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan that would cut taxes for 8 million of our seniors that pay Social Security taxes.

This boils down to a question of priorities. If we are going to pass a huge tax cut as the majority insists, who would we rather provide the tax cuts to? This amendment would provide tax relief to senior citizens who pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. Those who oppose this amendment apparently would rather provide tax breaks that mostly go to the wealthiest among us. They apparently would rather cut taxes on dividends that studies show will disproportionately benefit upper income folks. They apparently would rather accelerate tax cuts for taxpayers in the top bracket making over $300,000 a year. I would rather cut taxes for seniors than do these things.

I will support the Dorgan amendment as a major improvement to the underlying bill reported by the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment being offered by Senator Kennedy to extend and authorize additional unemployment benefits.

This is a tumultuous time for millions of Americans. Our economy is struggling right now and millions of Americans are down on their luck. Businesses and manufacturing plants are closing, the stock market is down and most importantly, jobs are being lost. It is critical that we in Congress, at a minimum, do what we can to help every day Americans hurt by this downturn, especially the increasing number of people who are unemployed and having trouble getting back into the workforce.

There are currently over 8.7 million unemployed Americans--the highest number in a decade. Since January 2001, the national unemployment rate has risen from 4.2 percent to over 6.0 percent. Since President Bush took office, the United States has lost over 2.7 million private sector jobs--the most of any President in modern history. The downturn has especially hit my home State of Michigan hard. Michigan has an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent--among the highest in the Nation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigan lost 17,700 jobs just last month--the most of any State in the country. That brings the total number of Michigan jobs lost since the Bush Administration took office to over 178,000.

Earlier this year, Congress extended Federal unemployment benefits for an additional five months to June 1, 2003. However, Congress did not authorize additional Federal benefits. Therefore, over 1 million workers who already had exhausted their 13 weeks of federal unemployment benefits and received no benefit from what Congress did earlier this year. Now is the time to assist those workers and all other Americans who are on the verge of exhausting either their state or federal unemployment benefits and in some cases, both.

It is ironic that during the week the Senate is taking up the President's ``Jobs and Growth'' package--the majority is not addressing the immediate need for job assistance for millions of Americans. Instead of pressing Congress for a ``robust'' tax cut to help the wealthiest Americans, the President should be fighting for additional unemployment benefits for working families who need them and will spend them, stimulating the economy. That is why I support Senator Kennedy's amendment to authorize an additional 13 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits, including coverage for those one million workers who have already exhausted their benefits. Senator Kennedy's amendment also expands unemployment coverage to low-wage and part-time workers. Finally, the amendment extends the Federal unemployment benefit program through November 2003 to accommodate new enrollees.

This is not just about doing what is right. It is also about doing what is helpful to our economy. It is elementary economics that providing additional unemployment benefits is a great way to jump start our stagnant economy. The money we are talking about here is money that will be spent. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, every $1 dollar invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 in gross domestic product. So we are going to be putting money into the hands of people who need it, people who will spend it, people who will help the economy.

Over 47,000 Michigan residents have exhausted their Federal unemployment benefits as of February of this year. If we fail to act, in 2 weeks, over 1.1 million Americans, including nearly 54,000 Michigan residents, will be without unemployment insurance benefits. This is unacceptable, especially given the fact that the Federal unemployment insurance trust fund currently has a surplus of more than $21 billion. The contrast couldn't be more evident than in this debate. Instead of pushing for a huge tax cut sharply slanted to upper income folks, I would hope that the Senate will show real leadership and support unemployment insurance that benefits working families.

The President accuses us of engaging in ``class warfare.'' Well, what he calls class warfare, I call reality. Under the President's tax cut plan, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are expected to receive an annual tax cut of about $90,000 a year, or a little more than $1700 a week. Under the Kennedy amendment, unemployed workers in my home state of Michigan would receive a maximum benefit of $362 a week. This bill will put money into the hands of people who need it and people who will spend it. That's good for our economy and it helps sustain the jobs that other people do have. The Senate should unanimously adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, a declaration recently filed in a California lawsuit by Mr. Robert A. Ricker, former assistant general counsel for the National Rifle Association and former executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, revealed that many in the gun industry have long known that their business practices make it easier for criminals to gain access to guns yet often fail to do anything about it.

In his declaration, Mr. Ricker cites an example of irresponsible business practices in the gun industry known as straw purchasing. Straw purchases are a primary avenue by which a relatively small number of federally licensed firearm dealers supply the criminal market. A straw purchase involves a buyer with a clean record purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from doing so. Mr. Ricker asserts that it has long been known in the gun industry that many straw purchases and other questionable sales can be stopped if dealers are trained in preventing illegal activity. However, in the absence of such training and a commitment to responsible business practices, many straw sales continue to take place undetected. Instead of requiring their dealers to act responsibly, Mr. Ricker says that it has been a common practice among some gun manufacturers to adopt a ``see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil'' approach. This approach does nothing to discourage the evasion of firearms laws and regulations.

Mr. Ricker's accounts confirm what has long been suspected. Some gun manufacturers and dealers know their practices facilitate criminal access to firearms but they do nothing about it. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that recently passed the House and that has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee would shield those negligent and reckless gun dealers and manufacturers from many legitimate civil lawsuits. Certainly, those in the industry who conduct their business negligently or recklessly should not be shielded from the consequences of their actions. Mr. Ricker's declaration contributes further evidence that this bill would assist some in the gun industry in avoiding responsibility for their business practices.

Mr. President, first let me thank my good friend from Virginia for his great work on this resolution. We have worked together not just in the Senate for all of these years but on this particular issue we have worked together for a long time. I also thank the managers of this bill, not just for working with us on this matter but also for their work generally on a host of issues which they struggle with to try to make our Nation a lot more secure. They work together magnificently. They are both essential for this country's security and strength and wisdom, which we surely need in these complicated days.

I thank my friend from Virginia.

First, I very much support the expansion of NATO to include these seven additional countries, just as I supported the expansion for the three that we approved a few years ago. I believe this expansion, like the last one, could lead to a safer, more united, more cohesive Europe and reduce the possibility that Europe would ever again be divided by war. I very much support the expansion.

I have been troubled by one issue for many years--actually a number of issues relative to NATO--that as we expand NATO, there is a greater likelihood, just statistically, that someday, some country is going to no longer live up to NATO's requirements that it be a democratic country with a free market. We hope that will never happen. We do not expect it to happen. But what happens, after these nations are added hopefully, if one day, one of the now 26 nations departs from the alliance's fundamental principles?

As it now stands, there is no mechanism in the charter to suspend a country that no longer complies with NATO's fundamental principles. It is an unusual alliance in that regard that does not have a suspension mechanism, but it does not. We could actually, theoretically, see a country become a dictatorship and stop 25 democracies from acting in their own self-defense or in defense of a secure world. That is an unusual provision. It is one that was consciously adopted, but it is one that as we add more countries to NATO we have to think about, it seems to me.

Our amendment is aimed at raising this issue. We do not direct that there be a solution to the problem. We simply believe that NATO countries, as NATO expands, should address the issue of a country in the future possibly departing from the fundamental principles that guide NATO.

What happens, for instance, if one country becomes a dictatorship? That dictatorship could veto a decision that all the other NATO member nations wanted to take, perhaps to come to the aid of a people who were being ethnically cleansed on a scale perhaps approaching what happened in the genocide that occurred in Kosovo, or worse. That issue, as well as the consensus issue Chairman Warner has raised, should be raised at NATO. They should discuss it. They should decide whether or not they want to proceed on the current course.

Again, I emphasize that our amendment, while expressing the sense of the Senate that the administration raised this issue at the North Atlantic Council, does not in any way indicate what the outcome of that discussion would be, nor, indeed, does it in any way suggest what the position of the United States should be during those deliberations. We simply want the issue of suspension and consensus and the other issues referred to in our resolution discussed at the highest level at NATO-- just discussed.

There is a question raised: Is this aimed at any particular country? It is not. It is explicitly not aimed at any one of the 26 countries. We made it clear we amended our language to make it clear this would take effect 18 months after the resolution is adopted. We expect by then all the new countries will have been in long enough so there will be no sensitivity about that issue.

We also make it clear this is not a condition in any way on the ratification of the NATO documents. It is drafted as a declaration of the intent of the Senate rather than as a condition of any type. That is, in essence, what we do.

A final discussion item that is listed in the resolution would be methods to streamline the process by which NATO makes decisions with respect to conducting military campaigns. We believe this is essential because this refers to the actual conduct of military operations--not to the approval to conduct it but it seeks to address the problems that were experienced in the conduct of NATO operations in Kosovo where it was reported that General Wesley Clark, the then NATO commander, was restricted in his actions by a number of NATO countries that wanted to review each day's bombing targets. The planning should be allowed to proceed in advance in the event that the North Atlantic Council approves the operation. This simply would expedite and streamline the planning of military operations.

Our amendment is not intended to interfere with the passage of our resolution of ratification. It would not cause any delay in the ascension of the seven new members into the NATO alliance. Again, it merely seeks to cause the alliance to consider some issues that could pose problems in the future, if not addressed in a calm, careful, and measured way before a crisis occurs.

Discussion and report is what we are asking the administration to participate in and to initiate--again, not declaring what the position of this administration or any future administration will be and not in any way suggesting the outcome of those deliberations and discussions. It is a matter of prudence that this issue, which would have such huge ramifications down the road as to whether or not NATO can act, should be discussed in advance, whatever the outcome of that discussion.

I thank Senators Lugar and Biden for working with us in a way so we now believe this matter can be resolved and adopted.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Warner/Levin/ Roberts amendment to the resolution of ratification on NATO Enlargement.

Before I talk about our amendment, I want to take a few moments to express my strong support for the enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

A significant aspect of any enlargement of the Alliance to the United States, of course, is that it would represent a commitment by the United States to treat an armed attack on any of these seven nations as an armed attack on the United States. In 1998, when the Senate was considering the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the attitude of Russia to the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact was a factor which was part of the debate. Such enlargement was not intended to be threatening and, appropriately, it was not perceived as a threat by Russia, which wanted to establish a constructive relationship with the United States and the other members of NATO. As a matter of fact, Russia's decision on that matter was so clear that its position relative to NATO membership for former Soviet Republics Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is not even an issue today.

One issue that I have wrestled with in 1998 and before was my belief that NATO should have a mechanism to suspend the membership of a NATO member, if that member no longer complies with the Alliance's fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. In the Armed Services Committee hearings that preceded the 1998 Senate floor action, I put the issue to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said in part that ``I think in situations in which a government emerges incompatible with the common purpose of the Alliance, there ought to be some method, maybe along the lines you put forward.'' I also raised the issue with former Secretary of Defense William Perry who said in part that ``What you are describing is a problem--in fact, I would call it a flaw--in the original NATO structure, the NATO agreements. And, in my judgment, this is a problem which should be addressed.''

I had a colloquy with the then Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, who said in part that ``I agree with the Senator from Michigan that this is an important matter that raises fundamental issues for the United States and our allies. I believe that this is a matter that merits careful consideration within NATO councils. It would certainly be preferable for NATO to discuss this in a careful and measured way now, rather than be faced with the issue at some future time when an emergency situation exists.''

That careful and measured consideration, however, has not been undertaken within NATO councils in the interviewing years.

Just as I supported enlargement of the Alliance to a total of nineteen nations in 1998, so I support enlargement of the Alliance today to a total of 26. But I am mindful that the sheer number of nations that will soon make up the alliance increases the chance that one of them may some day depart from the alliance's fundamental principles. Having said that, I want to be perfectly clear--our amendment is not aimed at any of the seven nations whose accession is before us today--it is not aimed at the three most recent NATO member nations--it is not aimed at any of the long-term NATO member nations-- and it is not aimed at any potential future NATO member nation--it is not aimed at any nation.

It is aimed at the possibility that a NATO member nation that, for example, was no longer democratic and was ruled by a dictator, would be in a position to veto a decision that all of the other NATO member nations wanted to take--perhaps to come to the aid of a people who were being ``ethnically cleansed'' on a scale that was approaching genocide such as happened in Kosovo. I believe that the United States should put the issue of whether a process should be established to suspend-- suspend, not expel--such a member nation so that it would not endanger NATO's decision making when all but an undemocratic member nation wants to act.

The growth in the number of NATO member nations to 26 also increases, under the laws of mathematics, the potential that one NATO member nation, even a nation that conforms to the alliance's fundamental principles, could prevent the alliance from making a decision where all other countries want to act. The recent experience, wherein France prevented the North Atlantic Council from authorizing planning for the defense of Turkey to proceed and the Alliance had to go to the Defense Planning Council for that authorization, is a real-world example that demonstrates the need for the alliance to reconsider whether the consensus rule for NATO decisions should be changed.

I want to emphasize very strongly at this point that our amendment doesn't mandate a particular outcome to the discussion of these issues by the North Atlantic Council. It doesn't prejudge the result of the discussion and it doesn't require the U.S. representative

to take a particular position in the discussion. It merely seeks to have the issues placed on the North Atlantic Council's agenda, discussed in the council, and the results of that discussion be reported back to the U.S. Senate.

Our amendment would require the President's report to discuss two other matters. The first would be methods to provide more flexibility to NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who is presently U.S. General Jim Jones, to plan potential contingency operations before the formal approval of such operations by the North Atlantic Council. In the instance that I mentioned, wherein France blocked the planning for Turkey's defense, it would have been very useful if NATO's military planning staff could have been preparing contingency plans so that they would have been immediately available once the civilian decision-makers had approved the defense of Turkey.

A final discussion item would be methods to streamline the process by which NATO makes decisions with respect to conducting military campaigns. This refers to the actual conduct of the operation--not to the approval to conduct it--and seeks to address the problems that were experienced in the conduct of the NATO operations in Kosovo where it is reported that General Wes Clark, the then-NATO Commander, was restricted in his actions as a number of NATO capitals insisted on reviewing and approving each day's bombing targets.

This amendment does not interfere with the passage of the resolution of ratification. It does not cause any delay in the accession of the seven new members into the NATO Alliance. It merely seeks to cause the Alliance to consider some issues that could pose serious problems in the future if not addressed in a calm, careful and measured way before a crisis occurs.

I ask unanimous consent that the discussion between myself and former Secretary of Defense Perry be printed in the Record.

I thank my friends, the managers of this resolution, for their tremendous work on NATO expansion and other issues.

I yield our time.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, a recent report published by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence cites numerous examples of reckless sales and distribution practices by gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers. The report, entitled ``Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market,'' reveals a disturbing pattern of negligence by some in the gun industry.

In one example, in 1996, according to the report, the owner and six employees of a California gun store were arrested for numerous Federal firearms offenses. The violations included selling illegally converted, fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles and having employees encourage customers to obtain false identification in order to skirt legal requirements for gun ownership. Even after the owner of the store was sent to prison, Heckler & Koch and other gun manufacturers, according to the report, continued to supply the store. In a letter explaining their ongoing business with the gun store, Heckler & Koch wrote that it ``is not our intention to turn away business.''

More recently, the sniper shootings that paralyzed the Washington, DC, area last year were committed with a rifle traced to a gun store in Tacoma, WA. According to the report, the Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle possessed by the sniper suspects was only one of 238 guns missing from the store's inventory. Despite previous ATF audits which revealed dozens of missing weapons and evidence linking a Bushmaster rifle from the store to the sniper killings, according to the report, a Bushmaster executive announced that his company still considered the same store a ``good customer'' and would continue to sell to it.

These examples of gun industry negligence are by no means isolated. The Brady Campaign report contains numerous other examples of careless behavior on the part of gun manufacturers and dealers, many of which surfaced only after civil liability suits were filed. The Brady report reveals the disregard of some in the gun industry for even basic self- regulation. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that recently passed the House and that has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee would shield the gun industry from many legitimate civil lawsuits. Certainly, those in the industry who conduct their business negligently or recklessly should not be shielded from the civil consequences of their actions.

Mr. President, the budget before the Senate, like the President's budget which it reflects, represents the wrong priorities: Too many ill-advised cuts in too many critical area to help pay for a tax cut which is too large, too inequitable, and which will worsen our fiscal situation without providing our economy the jump-start it needs.

The budget resolution that passed the Senate, while irresponsible, was a small improvement over the one reported from the committee. The Senate managed to make an irresponsible budget resolution slightly less irresponsible. The huge tax cuts the President proposed, a majority of which would go to upper income folks and which most economists agree would provide our economy with almost no jump-start that it so desperately needs, were scaled back some. But the conference report before the Senate today pushes us right back to where we started.

Notwithstanding our current record deficits, a war in Iraq and its expected aftermath, the full cost of which is not

yet known, and a baby boom generation that will soon retire in record numbers, the conference report contains tax cuts that total about $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years and, with the expected interest costs added in, $1.6 trillion.

As recently as January of 2001, the Office of Management and Budget projected a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we are back into a huge deficit hole and will be there for the foreseeable future. In fact, this conference report projects total deficits of $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including record deficits of over $300 billion this year and next.

The right type of small tax cuts could stimulate the economy by being effective in the short term and going to working families and small businesses who will spend the money now, instead of mainly going to the wealthiest among us who do not need tax cuts. Tax cuts that drastically worsen our long-term fiscal situation, that will not help out in the short term, and that would require cuts to many other priorities are not what our economy needs and not what our people are asking us to adopt.

How much money is going to whom in 2003? The President's tax cut proposal gives about half of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 5 percent of American taxpayers. People can try to put a different gloss on numbers, but there are two bottom lines: One bottom line is this proposal puts us deeper into a deficit ditch and pays for tax cuts mainly going to upper income folks by borrowing; the other bottom line is that the 2003 tax cut proposal of the President gives the wealthiest 5 percent about 50 percent of the money involved in these tax cuts.

Simple equity, as well as an economic stimulus, suggests if we are going to have tax cuts, they should be broad based, providing, for instance, every working family of four with an immediate tax cut of $1,200. That would be an economic stimulus. That would be equitable. That is not what is before the Senate.

There are a number of other things we ought to do in talking about equity and economic stimulus. We ought to extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have expired and were not previously extended. We ought to provide short-term incentives for businesses to invest immediately. We ought to provide some assistance to our struggling states for education, homeland security, Medicaid, and highway and other infrastructure improvements. Those measures would be better for our economy today, our fiscal situation in future years, and the many other challenges that lie ahead. They would also address today's problems today without passing the costs on to future generations. One symbol of those future generations are the men and women who now are putting their lives on the line for us in the war in Iraq. It seems to me unthinkable that when we welcome them home--hopefully with the parades and the welcome and the hugs they deserve--we would also tell them: By the way, the war you are fighting is going to be paid for by you and your kids, not by us; we are going to borrow money, not to pay for this war; we are going to borrow this money to pay for a tax cut that mainly goes to the wealthiest among us.

This approach in this budget is wrong on three counts. Number one, we should not be cutting taxes. We ought to be paying for the war now. Number two, if we are going to borrow money, if we have to borrow money for the war, we obviously should borrow it for the war, not for a tax cut. Finally, if there are going to be tax cuts, the tax cuts ought to go not only to those who need the tax cuts the most but those who will spend the money now, giving our economy the jump-start it needs.

We need a lift in this economy, not one that will kick in years down the road or will further explode the deficit, but a fiscally responsible lift that will kick in now. The job loss numbers released a week ago by the Labor Department reinforce the need for a stimulus plan that will create jobs now, in 2003, when we need it.

The proposed tax cuts are not only sharply slanted toward the wealthiest among us, they would do virtually nothing to assist our financially strapped States. As a matter of fact, the tax cuts as proposed may harm them. Just the proposed dividend tax provision alone would actually strip my home State of Michigan of over $100 million in revenue in 2004. And economists, including multiple Nobel Prize winners, agree the tax cut will not provide the boost that this economy needs.

I was also very disappointed to see the conference report excluded an amendment that I offered and that was adopted by the Senate in the budget resolution which we adopted.

The amendment to which I referred, which was adopted by the Senate, was aimed at closing down certain abusive tax haven loopholes. We would have taken the money which we would receive by closing down these abuses and applied half of it to the deficit, the other half going to education in areas where we are cutting education.

It is unconscionable to me that corporations, too many of them, have renounced their United States citizenship and opened phony offices in Bermuda from which they can then pretend that their businesses operate, keep doing their business here in the United States, using our police departments, our fire departments, our schools, and all of our other services--inverting, as it is called--getting the benefits of citizenship here but avoiding paying taxes.

People ask, how come revenues are going down? There are a lot of reasons why revenues are going down. One of them is the tax cuts which were adopted here which were proposed by President Bush. Obviously, a slowing economy has had an effect, too. But one of the other reasons we lost revenues is that we have too many corporations that are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes through a very large number of tax avoidance schemes.

We have seen some of these tax shelters. We have seen some of these special-purpose entities used by Enron and

others. We have seen a whole host of ways folks can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It seems to me, in the middle of a war, the most unconscionable one of all is those corporations that renounce their citizenship and open up a fake office somewhere else in order to avoid paying taxes which they should be paying, and at the same time using our roads, our schools, our banks, our patent laws, our law enforcement, our fair trade laws, our workforce, and not contributing their fair share to pay for those benefits. It was really unfortunate that the conferees decided to strip this budget resolution of language that was aimed at closing down that particular loophole.

This budget emphasizes the wrong priorities. It burrows us deeper into the deficit ditch. It continues our reliance on the Social Security surplus. And it fails to provide the stimulus which is needed to improve our sputtering economy. It rises to a new level of irresponsibility and it should be defeated.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in commemoration of the Armenian genocide. As the 88th anniversary of this horrific event approaches, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the men, women and children who were murdered or displaced in the 20th century's first systematic attempt to extinguish an entire people.

On April 24, 1915, the Turkish Ottoman government initiated a campaign to expel 1.75 million ethnic Armenians from its borders. Turkish authorities operated under the baseless claim that its Armenian community would be disloyal in a time of war since they were neither Turks nor Muslims. On April 24, government leaders rounded up 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in what was then Constantinople for their deportation or, for many, their deaths. In nearby areas, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were killed in their homes or on the streets. Over the course of the subsequent 2 years, between 500,000 and 1 million Armenians were killed and 750,000 were forced to leave their homes.

Henry Morgenthau, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire remarked, ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.''

Records of eyewitness accounts allow us to gain an incomplete yet painful understanding of the atrocities the Armenian people faced. An American missionary wrote, `` . . . All tell the same story and bear the same scars: their men were all killed on the first days [sic] march from their cities, after which the women and girls were constantly robbed of their money, bedding, clothing and beaten, criminally abused and abducted along the way.''

Another account by an Armenian and corroborated by a German missionary said, ``We all had to take refuge in the cellar for fear of our orphanage catching fire. It was heartrending to hear the cries of the people and children who were being burned to death in their houses. The soldiers took great delight in hearing them, and when people who were out in the street during the bombardment fell dead, the soldiers merely laughed at them. . . . ``

I wish we could say that such events are in the past and that history will never again have not been learned and millions of other people and races have suffered at the hands of malicious leaders who have acted upon their messages of hate and intolerance.

Each year during my tenure in the Senate, I have spoken out about the Armenian genocide. I believe the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of any genocide is by acknowledging the horrors they faced and reaffirming our commitment to fight against such heinous acts in the future. It is important that we take the time to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors, especially as that generation passes on.

I know my Senate colleagues join me in celebrating the continued vitality of the Armenian culture, and in honoring and remembering the victims of the Armenian genocide.